@@musk-eteer9898 It's not necessarily a free ride if it's still being done at Boeing's expense ... whether you give them a bill or a hell of a dose of humility, especially if it emphasizes the point that Boeing is so shit that they can't even bring their own crew back home. Just saying.
@@jeremiahputnam3893 Scrap Starliner and send the money over to Dreamchaser. While it hasn't flown yet Starliner has shown it is a whole in which to throw money down and get nothing back.
@@JW-jl8iq "Bureaucrats" does not just apply just to the government, you know. It applies to huge private companies as well. And when a company or a government moves to protect its bureaucrats and its egos more than it does their products....this is what happens.
These are NOT bureaucrats, who ruined the show. It's the damned capitalist profiteer managers of Boeing, and their greased NASA hands! There is a huge difference, but US-Americans for some reason do not know the difference! A real government bureaucrat would have never allowed this thing to take off or even get funding!
Agreed. Also when NASA is more focused on loyalty to their legacy suppliers than to quality. The Space Shuttle should have been extensively redesigned years befor Chalkenger, but that would have risked their prime contractors contracts. The unmanned NASA programs have been very successful, but the manned programs are too political.
They didn't take that long. Two Starliners were built from 2014 to 2019. It's just taken this long to fly a crew on them. The Space Shuttle program started with studies as early as 1968 and officially began in 1972. So about up to 13 years between conception and 1st flight while Starliner began in the early 2010s and first flew in 2019 with 1st crew flight in 2024. So roughly about the same time.
Boeing keeps screwing up and NASA keeps going back. And why launch when you know there is a problem? Doesn't sound like they have much respect for the astronauts.
With a combined 44 years working in this industry as active duty military, private contractor, and civil servant; I agree with your statement 100%. I determined early on that the better run more effective organizations selected the best technical personnel with leadership/management abilities and motivation rather than career managers they hoped could learn the engineering part. I believe the whole culture of calling good engineers and scientists nerds and geeks, and lauding falsely they were socially challenged is a myth propounded by those secondary university students that were not academically capable of doing math and science and became marketing, advertising, majors and spent the rest of their somewhat useless lives (convincing others to buy things they don't want or need) making themselves feel better about themselves by berating those that they could never become. These are the ones running things now. What about those that wanted a four year party before having to grow up for which the marketing/advertising thing was a little too much work? They are really liking that student loan forgiveness thing.
@@robertwest2879 The only thing DEI does is help HR departments recognize prejudices within the hiring system and on various questionnaires. It in no way stops meritorious hiring; on the contrary it strengthens it by ensuring that ALL candidates for a position are considered fairly. It's not the same as Affirmative Actions in Universities. Don't confuse the two.
@@janices5389 The whole system went wrong when hiring changed from a personnel dept to Human Resources....nonsense of a bunch of females involved in the hiring process about areas of expertise they know squat about.
Never underestimate the power of an experienced defense contractor to double the budget, deliver late, and with poor performance…..Boeing has a lock on incompetence right now but a “diverse” workforce. Coincidence?
Wrong on both counts. Ever done aerospace engineering? Worked in a group developing aerospace hardware? If you aren't qualified to do it, you aren't qualified to talk about it.
Money Laundering is their focus. They realized they can tell us things cost more than they actually cost. The money then DISAPPEARS and they ask for MORE money. When We, The People, start to ask questions they stage a terrorist attack and start a (money laundering) war.
You need look no further than the differences between how SpaceX is structured and how Boeing is structured. SpaceX, like Musk’s other companies, has a flat organisation where cooperation between teams and departments is encouraged and failures are seen as opportunities to improve. Boeing, by contrast, is a huge organisation where managers are more concerned about their own little fiefdoms and positions than anything else. Problems are always somebody else’s fault and should be covered up if possible, in case they can be traced back to an individual. It’s the only explanation I can think of for SpaceX’s ongoing success and Boeing’s abject failure. Both have government money but it’s clear that SpaceX spends it wisely while Boeing fritters it away then asks for more…
But also SpaceX has NASA / spy services as minor customer, not sole. Re-usable Falcon 9 driven by need for ginormous Starlink internet satellite constellation. And in turn mission to Mars - for city of 1 million settlers. Way bigger dreams. Lots of people could dedicate whole lives to realising those dreams. Boeing is kids lemonade stand in comparison.
@@iandavies4853 I wouldn’t say Boeing is a lemonade stand but it makes nearly all its money from aviation, not space. As you say, SpaceX is a lot more focused on the job of launching rockets.
Good job Boeing for adding another module to the ISS. Crew now have a extra little seating area. Probably better that it is stuck to the ISS rather than attempting a re-entry.
@@JamesSwafford-hf9bo But that would anger the Boeing employees and they wouldn't vote for the people who cut their funds. At this point the sole goal of the whole game is to keep Boeing employees happy, so they keep re-electing the same clowns who gave them the money in the first place.
@@coldwarveteran4239 Let's be clear about this and direct our indignation where it belongs. "Too big to fail" is a designation invented by the government (not the company) as an excuse for sending them taxpayer money that they don't deserve. Boeing didn't invent the "too big to fail" scam, they're just good at playing it.
I think they’re talking about the Starliner itself. I could see the crew coming back on a Crew Dragon at some point. But they may be living on the ISS until they get a chance to come home safely.
When “bean counters” and MBAs take over a corporation that depends on the safety of its customers the bottom line and shareholder value takes precedence.
Maybe Boeing can first fix their problems on their airplanes. Leave space to others. This reminds me of Apollo where my dad (Ph.D. In electrical engineering) sort of said that 1% of the engineers did 99% of the work and 99% of the engineers could not complete the other 1%. Our system with many private, money hungry companies leads to our failure. On the other hand Elon Musk seems to run a tight ship. Let’s go with the best. No more $1K toilet seats, etc. These are lives that we are putting on the line. No one on the ground can even imagine that the astronauts trust their competence.
It really is time for Boeing to pause and return to the days they were a premier engineering company. Putting people in vehicles designed by MBA's really doesn't make much sense. Hopefully they'll figure all these things out before they fail right out of flight products and move into say, home appliances.
oh yes the boeing sound system the one that stops working 5 minutes after you plug it in and blows up after that, or the boeing air purifyer wash the filter and the system dies on you or the boeing vaccum cleaner people say it sucks but it really blows and doesn't suck anything up.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
All of Boeing's problems started AFTER the last merger. The well-respected name BOEING was kept, and the failing McDonnell Douglas management filled all the leadership positions. It is little wonder why Boeing has had such a string of bad luck with everything it has tried to create since the merger. Time for a divorce. Only problem... there is no one left to do the real job of engineering.
Does Boeing have a systemic cultural problem or management problem? Boeing 737 MAX problems and now the Starliner. Let's hope the Starliner issues don't end in tragedy.
@@jeffpeyton3702 Government Defense Contractor mindset. Excessive money for half-baked systems that will require 10x more money to eventually get working well enough to claim success. Meanwhile, SpaceX shows what an actual innovative company, without the excessive management layers and reliance on huge never-ending contracts for sub-par hardware, can do. The government pays defense contractors huge amounts of welfare payments knowing the projects will never deliver. Just part of the corruption at all levels of government.
All of Boeing's problems started AFTER the last merger. The well-respected name BOEING was kept, and the failing McDonnell Douglas management filled all the leadership positions. I believe I see the problem...
My experience with very close tolerance (thin) gasket leaks, just tightening the bolts after the gasket has been installed for some length of time only causes more leaks by deforming the gasket. Need to replace gasket. If "O" rings are used exceeding bolt torque specs won't help and could warp the whole assembly. If compression fittings, good luck.
Sounds like they asked the kid at Home Depot what to do. The correct method is to reassemble the joint and tighten the bolts to the specified torque. If it still leaks, take the joint apart and reassemble it again...and again...and again. Trying to fix a leak by tightening the bolts on a joint of this type is 100% the wrong thing to do.
I was on Submarines for 20 years and our QC people would never have allowed that. We would have had to pull the whole thing apart inspect it and get another seal installed and then tested again.
@@broccanmacronain457 I agree. With more 4 more leaks being found and thrusters failing when maneuvering for docking, I suspect microfractures in the manifold or connecting plumbing after the trip. With the main Helium valve closed I suspect the Starliner is safe enough for now. But with that kind of pressure, no way would I repressurize the system back to working pressure with Starliner attached to the ISS.
They were made by McDonnell Douglas....company..along with F4 pham* f101 voodoo no waste of money there...at the time Boeing aired McDonell Douglas they were getting a booster to land on pads.. Then after that never to be heard of again
Money Laundering is their focus. They realized they can tell us things cost more than they actually cost. The money then DISAPPEARS and they ask for MORE money. When We, The People, start to ask questions they stage a terrorist attack and start a (money laundering) war.
In the case of Artemis: its a frank'n rocket. Parts from different obsolete vehicles, From Space shutttle engines , to the cancelled Ares rocket. Also NASA is largely a jobs program & congress fight over which states get NASA money.
Starliners reliability, durability, cost-effectives, rapid deployment and redeployment, stability and safety and reusability are all X checked fails. The FAA is so nitpicky when it comes to private space industries but for government NASA and its partners they pass with failure standard! How did Starliner got to the ISS with FAA approval of this magnitude when the craft can barely stay afloat This is just a bit closer to the fatal Apollo mission in terms of unreliability and safety!
This is a common trend in industry : Projects are driven by managers that have zero technical insight. Technicians and engineers that actually have the knowledge are treated like "expendables".
@@gravelydon7072lol. Starship isn’t even pressurized. And can’t reenter. And has only landed once. And it can’t seem to get to orbit. And it costs 100x what falcon costs. I guess you’ve drank all that kool aid…
@Meatball2022 if you look at the mission parameters on Google and almost literally every minute from the SpaceX narrators on the live feed, the mission was never to achieve orbit, but to achieve a high enough speed upon reentering the atmosphere (IFT 4 achieved about 29,000 kph at 170 km above sea level, which is enough speed for peak reentering temperatures on the heat shield) to gauge survivability of the heat shield and to simulate a 'virtual tower' landing for both booster and vehicle. As of now, Starship is still in prototype phase and will continue to conduct these kinds of tests until Nasa certifies SpaceX to send astronauts. Keep in mind SpaceX has done this kind of prototype testing on the Falcon 9 and booster landings. Falcon 9 took 4 attempts to succeed and the booster landing took about 6.
@@TheReal_JG you’ve been sold a non existent bill of goods. Enjoy the kool aid. Starship is so bad it can’t even reach moon without refueling. That’s a planned failure.
There was nothing wrong with the space shuttle. Engineering said don't launch it in this low temperature environment... Bureaucrats said go anyway and it blew up just like engineering said it would. The tiles knocked off during launch could have been repaired while still in orbit, but the bureaucracy failed to do that. National aeronautics and Space administration should not be involved in spacecraft anymore. You don't see the Federal aviation administration running an airline do you??
Boeings issue is they cut key quality control personal as the spaceship fell behind schedule. Plus the massive overhead of Boeings corporate ways heavily on the program. While SpaceX does not have these same issues. Boeing was a great airplane manufacturer but now is only mediocre especially when quality is considered and with its massive corporate overhead, it must charge premium dollars for a late and not so great product. Their days as providing launch vehicles for NASA and other space agencies is coming to a close. Competition is eating their lunches and management refuses to take the steps necessary to meet the demands of the market.
All of Boeing's problems started AFTER the last merger. The well-respected name BOEING was kept, and the failing McDonnell Douglas management filled all the leadership positions. A blind person can see the problems...
Boeing got what.......... twice the funding as SpaceX to send two people into space while Dragon takes four. Sounds like the typical government "bargain."
@@ghost307 AND the Dragon comes in two versions, cargo and crew. Remember Inspration-4? It didn't dock at the ISS so the Dragon was fitted with a BIG viewing port under the nose hatch for the crew to enjoy the view.
With the known insecurity of this vessel, my concern which was never really mentioned is the loss of the two astronauts. We cannot afford to lose any astronauts. It’ll set back the space program for an unknown period of time. And the fact that there is no real set time for these astronauts and the Starliner returning back home safely is unsettling.
They've killed people before. The deaths will be used to make speeches and "inspire" us to support future space "efforts" to honor the memory of our fallen. They don't really care. Profits are HUGE. Money Laundering is their focus. They realized they can tell us things cost more than they actually cost. The money then DISAPPEARS and they ask for MORE money. When We, The People, start to ask questions they stage a terrorist attack and start a (money laundering) war.
For everyone's safety, they should immediately move the Starliner away from the ISS (as it may literally be a ticking time bomb), then try an automatic reentry without any crew on board. Boeing should pay Space-X to send a Dragon up to retrieve the test pilot crew. NASA should write-off the whole Starliner program and invest in other alternatives. No one needs another fatal disaster in space!
Boeing is discussing a new contract with NASA. The astronauts are flown to the ISS, but not returned to earth. They call it the "Half-Liner". A joke? Hmmm... not really.
So what can we expect. They built the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and it blew down. Then they built the floating bridge on Lake Washington and it floated away.
Never, in typical "capitalism gone wild" fashion, they're "too big/important/entrenched" to fail. I think there's a great solution that we're stepping over when we encounter these "too big to fail" things: Nationalization. That's right, if Boeing can't run Boeing right, it gets taken over by the government (and no, the CEO's/management who caused this problem wouldn't get their golden parachutes, in fact they'd likely be imprisoned and/or their accounts and assets that the US can exert control over would be frozen, for failure to complete government contracts (such as CST-100 Starliner) to satisfaction). Of course this won't happen because the corporations have sufficient control over the government to be largely immune to things like "consequences of their actions" and that's why living in the US sucks so much right now.
When I worked for NASA we had an all hands because the Constellation program (later became SLS) had $1B unspent and all centers had to find ways to burn it before the end of the year. The amount of $ NASA spent before turning LEO over to commercial space is mind boggling. X-34, X-37, X-38, SLI Constellation... all money pits with 0 launches.
3 месяца назад+3
Why even bother with Boeing????? Stay with SpaceX!
If it is not safe don't do it. Bring the starliner home unmanned and bring the astronaut home on starship. Boeing does not want the embarrassment of having the astronaut take an uber ride from space-x. NASA does not need the political embarrassment of losing astronauts to contractor pressure.
After all these years Nasa should have been the first to get back into the game I mean come on we went to the moon and now it takes years just to get back into space ? something seems a bit fishy IMO....
They've killed people before. The deaths will be used to make speeches and "inspire" us to support future space "efforts" to honor the memory of our fallen. They don't really care. Profits are HUGE. Money Laundering is their focus. They realized they can tell us things cost more than they actually cost. The money then DISAPPEARS and they ask for MORE money. When We, The People, start to ask questions they stage a terrorist attack and start a (money laundering) war.
More Boeing DEI engineering? Or more fast food workers doing assembly? Or both? Those MBA’s think you don’t need subject matter experts proficient in an applicable trade? Any warm body can do the job cheaper… Maybe even illegal immigrants…
Looks like a no-brainer; SpaceX has it down! You don’t have to be a “rocket scientist” to figure out that Musk and SpaceX have figured out how to do it better and cheaper! I still can’t get over seeing the Falcon rockets return and land!
NASA has such an incredible history, why did they sub out construction to Boeing ? It certainly doesn't sound like it was cost effective. And especially given the current track record of Boeings most current passenger jets, maybe it's time to call Elon Musk & let him run with it.
It's one thing to run into problems after leaving the port. It's another thing to shove off with known problems you failed to repair while in port (Key Bridge).
I so called it. I was worried that space astronauts would be coming back on it, after hearing about the leak. I was so worried for them. They should have SpaceX go over it to make the corrections because Boeing is failing.
@@myvideosetc.8271They've killed people before. The deaths will be used to make speeches and "inspire" us to support future space "efforts" to honor the memory of our fallen. They don't really care. Profits are HUGE. Money Laundering is their focus. They realized they can tell us things cost more than they actually cost. The money then DISAPPEARS and they ask for MORE money. When We, The People, start to ask questions they stage a terrorist attack and start a (money laundering) war.
As a video producer I thought robot voices would be a boon for narrations. Now, as a video consumer, I detest them. Why should I put credence to a narration when I know the human sounding voice is really from a machine? “I’ll see you in the next one,” he says at the end of this. Yeah, sure.
So Boing corporation can't build helium tight valves. I wonder how every other space company in history have done it. This must be pretty embarrassing for them. Software bugs should probably not be possible they would have digital twins surely.
Send SpaceX Dragon to recover the crew and send Boeing the bill for it.
Or, Space-X could send Dragon on the house, a rather classy way of exhibiting superiority over Boeing in that field of aerospace...
Why is Starliner even an option? With the success of Falcon and the crap Boeing is shoveling through the doors, this is insanity.
@@Watcher3223 business is business, no free ride.
@@musk-eteer9898 It's not necessarily a free ride if it's still being done at Boeing's expense ... whether you give them a bill or a hell of a dose of humility, especially if it emphasizes the point that Boeing is so shit that they can't even bring their own crew back home.
Just saying.
@@jeremiahputnam3893 Scrap Starliner and send the money over to Dreamchaser. While it hasn't flown yet Starliner has shown it is a whole in which to throw money down and get nothing back.
This is a prime example of how bureaucrats can lead a project into disaster due to their incompetence.
Bureaucrats? explain? Stop the rhetoric
no. this is diversity, equity, and inclusion eroding all facets of society.
@@JW-jl8iq "Bureaucrats" does not just apply just to the government, you know. It applies to huge private companies as well.
And when a company or a government moves to protect its bureaucrats and its egos more than it does their products....this is what happens.
These are NOT bureaucrats, who ruined the show. It's the damned capitalist profiteer managers of Boeing, and their greased NASA hands! There is a huge difference, but US-Americans for some reason do not know the difference! A real government bureaucrat would have never allowed this thing to take off or even get funding!
Aggressive cost cutting resulted in a demotivated workforce and loss of institutional knowledge. Who would have expected that?
Boeing and NASA should not worry about their egos. They need to focus on the safety of the Astronauts.
😡
Oh oh remember the two space shuttle disasters which could have been avoided if NASA thought about safety first.
NASA lost 17 astronauts, that we know about. That's pretty awful.
And it's Boeing, so who knows....the door might fall off
@@Girdwoodianif it's Boeing, I ain't Going!
And Spacex has had sooo many disasters, so we must stick with Boeing. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
When NASA feels pressured and doesnt want to be humiliated folks get killed.
Challenger.
Agreed. Also when NASA is more focused on loyalty to their legacy suppliers than to quality. The Space Shuttle should have been extensively redesigned years befor Chalkenger, but that would have risked their prime contractors contracts. The unmanned NASA programs have been very successful, but the manned programs are too political.
At least the door didn't fly off
That’s a good point
Not yet.
Yet...
Yet
My thoughts exactly. Who knows if may have, just don't want to let that out.
It took them longer to build this than it took to design and launch the Space Shuttle.
They didn't take that long. Two Starliners were built from 2014 to 2019. It's just taken this long to fly a crew on them. The Space Shuttle program started with studies as early as 1968 and officially began in 1972. So about up to 13 years between conception and 1st flight while Starliner began in the early 2010s and first flew in 2019 with 1st crew flight in 2024. So roughly about the same time.
The neologism "Crewed" and how much it sounds like "Crude" describes Starliner perfectly. This thing is a "shack of sit".
👁️🤔🫵🏼 meant "Boeing's Flying 🚀🗑️💩😊!!!?
I mean, piece of SHIT !!!💩
Too bad for the Astronaut/Actors 👀
S+
Boeing keeps screwing up and NASA keeps going back. And why launch when you know there is a problem? Doesn't sound like they have much respect for the astronauts.
Can't loose face to china that is the real reason .
Or our tax dollars
There are always problems.
Politicians, the Bureaucratic Ruling Class and their cut into those Billions of Dollars; living Fat off the working man/woman.
It's simple. SpaceX is run by engineers and Boeing is run by bean counters.
Correction, Boeing is run by DEI hire bureaucrats.
With a combined 44 years working in this industry as active duty military, private contractor, and civil servant; I agree with your statement 100%.
I determined early on that the better run more effective organizations selected the best technical personnel with leadership/management abilities and motivation rather than career managers they hoped could learn the engineering part. I believe the whole culture of calling good engineers and scientists nerds and geeks, and lauding falsely they were socially challenged is a myth propounded by those secondary university students that were not academically capable of doing math and science and became marketing, advertising, majors and spent the rest of their somewhat useless lives (convincing others to buy things they don't want or need) making themselves feel better about themselves by berating those that they could never become.
These are the ones running things now.
What about those that wanted a four year party before having to grow up for which the marketing/advertising thing was a little too much work? They are really liking that student loan forgiveness thing.
I guess this is why Boeing and NASA picked the two oldest astronauts in the agency to go up in that death trap.
Yea, they had to go for a sembelence of experience over DEI
@@robertwest2879 The only thing DEI does is help HR departments recognize prejudices within the hiring system and on various questionnaires. It in no way stops meritorious hiring; on the contrary it strengthens it by ensuring that ALL candidates for a position are considered fairly. It's not the same as Affirmative Actions in Universities. Don't confuse the two.
@@janices5389 The whole system went wrong when hiring changed from a personnel dept to Human Resources....nonsense of a bunch of females involved in the hiring process about areas of expertise they know squat about.
Yes😂
@@janices5389 lol
Never underestimate the power of an experienced defense contractor to double the budget, deliver late, and with poor performance…..Boeing has a lock on incompetence right now but a “diverse” workforce. Coincidence?
Wrong on both counts. Ever done aerospace engineering? Worked in a group developing aerospace hardware? If you aren't qualified to do it, you aren't qualified to talk about it.
Nobody was fired?! 7 years delay, billions of dollar over-run, still unsafe to use.
The bigwigs probably had their bonuses increased.
Money Laundering is their focus. They realized they can tell us things cost more than they actually cost. The money then DISAPPEARS and they ask for MORE money.
When We, The People, start to ask questions they stage a terrorist attack and start a (money laundering) war.
A big function of NASA is jobs for Congressional districts. That's why NASA is so expensive. SpaceX has no such ball & chain.
You need look no further than the differences between how SpaceX is structured and how Boeing is structured. SpaceX, like Musk’s other companies, has a flat organisation where cooperation between teams and departments is encouraged and failures are seen as opportunities to improve. Boeing, by contrast, is a huge organisation where managers are more concerned about their own little fiefdoms and positions than anything else. Problems are always somebody else’s fault and should be covered up if possible, in case they can be traced back to an individual.
It’s the only explanation I can think of for SpaceX’s ongoing success and Boeing’s abject failure. Both have government money but it’s clear that SpaceX spends it wisely while Boeing fritters it away then asks for more…
Well said
But also SpaceX has NASA / spy services as minor customer, not sole.
Re-usable Falcon 9 driven by need for ginormous Starlink internet satellite constellation.
And in turn mission to Mars - for city of 1 million settlers.
Way bigger dreams. Lots of people could dedicate whole lives to realising those dreams.
Boeing is kids lemonade stand in comparison.
@@iandavies4853 I wouldn’t say Boeing is a lemonade stand but it makes nearly all its money from aviation, not space. As you say, SpaceX is a lot more focused on the job of launching rockets.
I'm surprised the two astronauts even made it there!
and will most likely need SpaceX to bring them home safely.
I'll be surprised if they make it back safely.
Boeing didn't make the rocket...
Did it come equipped with jumper cables 😂
@@Wes4Trump Yep... but they jumped ship just before launch... 😁
Good job Boeing for adding another module to the ISS. Crew now have a extra little seating area. Probably better that it is stuck to the ISS rather than attempting a re-entry.
It's really not good for anything more than a closet. It doesn't even have a rudimentary toilet.
Boeing should not get any more government contracts for spacecraft.
@@JamesSwafford-hf9bo But that would anger the Boeing employees and they wouldn't vote for the people who cut their funds. At this point the sole goal of the whole game is to keep Boeing employees happy, so they keep re-electing the same clowns who gave them the money in the first place.
Another example of supporting the too big to fail companies. They just suck up valuable resources.
@@coldwarveteran4239 Let's be clear about this and direct our indignation where it belongs. "Too big to fail" is a designation invented by the government (not the company) as an excuse for sending them taxpayer money that they don't deserve. Boeing didn't invent the "too big to fail" scam, they're just good at playing it.
Where is the part about them not coming back?
Multiple helium leaks
They were supposed to return on the 14th. Now they say the 22nd. Leaks still not fixed. Doesnt look good for them.
Thanks
I think they’re talking about the Starliner itself. I could see the crew coming back on a Crew Dragon at some point. But they may be living on the ISS until they get a chance to come home safely.
He CLICKBAITed everyone. He is not a technical person. He should run for office.
When “bean counters” and MBAs take over a corporation that depends on the safety of its customers the bottom line and shareholder value takes precedence.
Maybe Boeing can first fix their problems on their airplanes.
Leave space to others.
This reminds me of Apollo where my dad (Ph.D. In electrical engineering) sort of said that 1% of the engineers did 99% of the work and 99% of the engineers could not complete the other 1%.
Our system with many private, money hungry companies leads to our failure.
On the other hand Elon Musk seems to run a tight ship.
Let’s go with the best.
No more $1K toilet seats, etc.
These are lives that we are putting on the line.
No one on the ground can even imagine that the astronauts trust their competence.
It really is time for Boeing to pause and return to the days they were a premier engineering company. Putting people in vehicles designed by MBA's really doesn't make much sense. Hopefully they'll figure all these things out before they fail right out of flight products and move into say, home appliances.
oh yes the boeing sound system the one that stops working 5 minutes after you plug it in and blows up after that, or the boeing air purifyer wash the filter and the system dies on you or the boeing vaccum cleaner people say it sucks but it really blows and doesn't suck anything up.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
All of Boeing's problems started AFTER the last merger. The well-respected name BOEING was kept, and the failing McDonnell Douglas management filled all the leadership positions. It is little wonder why Boeing has had such a string of bad luck with everything it has tried to create since the merger.
Time for a divorce.
Only problem... there is no one left to do the real job of engineering.
Musk and SpaceX will rescue them
NASA should charge Boeing for extended stay on the ISS..like a hotel bill.
That would be hilarious 🤣
@@MrGchiasson Bill Nelson needs to surrender the NASA keys to Musk and just walk away
Yeah, Boeing won't steal technology to make their stuff work.
@speckledone: Boeing can't make an electric fan work these days even with instructions!
Does Boeing have a systemic cultural problem or management problem? Boeing 737 MAX problems and now the Starliner. Let's hope the Starliner issues don't end in tragedy.
Let's not forget about Goeing's other problem children: the T-7 and the KC-46.
"Does Boeing have a systemic cultural problem or management problem?"
Yes.
@@jeffpeyton3702 Government Defense Contractor mindset. Excessive money for half-baked systems that will require 10x more money to eventually get working well enough to claim success. Meanwhile, SpaceX shows what an actual innovative company, without the excessive management layers and reliance on huge never-ending contracts for sub-par hardware, can do. The government pays defense contractors huge amounts of welfare payments knowing the projects will never deliver. Just part of the corruption at all levels of government.
Yes they’re woke and DEI heavy, therefore quality is crap.
All of Boeing's problems started AFTER the last merger. The well-respected name BOEING was kept, and the failing McDonnell Douglas management filled all the leadership positions.
I believe I see the problem...
My experience with very close tolerance (thin) gasket leaks, just tightening the bolts after the gasket has been installed for some length of time only causes more leaks by deforming the gasket. Need to replace gasket. If "O" rings are used exceeding bolt torque specs won't help and could warp the whole assembly. If compression fittings, good luck.
My thoughts exactly! They tightened the bolts, and thought that would fix it??? 🙄
Sounds like they asked the kid at Home Depot what to do.
The correct method is to reassemble the joint and tighten the bolts to the specified torque.
If it still leaks, take the joint apart and reassemble it again...and again...and again.
Trying to fix a leak by tightening the bolts on a joint of this type is 100% the wrong thing to do.
Wow someone with intellect. A breath of air in this land of low IQ zombies.👍👍👍
I was on Submarines for 20 years and our QC people would never have allowed that. We would have had to pull the whole thing apart inspect it and get another seal installed and then tested again.
@@broccanmacronain457 I agree. With more 4 more leaks being found and thrusters failing when maneuvering for docking, I suspect microfractures in the manifold or connecting plumbing after the trip. With the main Helium valve closed I suspect the Starliner is safe enough for now. But with that kind of pressure, no way would I repressurize the system back to working pressure with Starliner attached to the ISS.
People ask me why i quit flying on Boeing aircraft 30 years ago. I miss the days of DC10, L1011 and MD11.
They were made by McDonnell Douglas....company..along with F4 pham* f101 voodoo no waste of money there...at the time Boeing aired McDonell Douglas they were getting a booster to land on pads..
Then after that never to be heard of again
an observation, Boeing is Unionized while Space X is not AND compared to Boeing the enthusiasm of Space X employees is glaringly obvious.
It has nothing to do with the union. However, it definitely has to do with the Wall Street beaurocrats running Boeing instead of engineers.
If we put all these missions on the moon, more then 50 years ago, why are we having trouble just getting a moon rocker to work? Interesting.
Good question!
American industry and our education system had not been destroyed back then. I am surprised we can even build a rocket anymore.
Money Laundering is their focus. They realized they can tell us things cost more than they actually cost. The money then DISAPPEARS and they ask for MORE money.
When We, The People, start to ask questions they stage a terrorist attack and start a (money laundering) war.
In the case of Artemis: its a frank'n rocket. Parts from different obsolete vehicles, From Space shutttle engines , to the cancelled Ares rocket. Also NASA is largely a jobs program & congress fight over which states get NASA money.
@@guytech7310 Very true. This is going to cause many costly problems down the road.
It's DEI Boeing!!! What did you expect??? I will never fly Boeing again.
Blaming DEI is racist.
@@quixote5844 even if it's true.
Starliners reliability, durability, cost-effectives, rapid deployment and redeployment, stability and safety and reusability are all X checked fails. The FAA is so nitpicky when it comes to private space industries but for government NASA and its partners they pass with failure standard! How did Starliner got to the ISS with FAA approval of this magnitude when the craft can barely stay afloat This is just a bit closer to the fatal Apollo mission in terms of unreliability and safety!
This is a common trend in industry : Projects are driven by managers that have zero technical insight. Technicians and engineers that actually have the knowledge are treated like "expendables".
NASA is not the NASA of the 60s and 70s.
Space X is already years ahead on building a spacecraft to get to the moon and back. Sending supplies and people to the space station is routine
Heck, its almost to the point where SpaceX could send a Starship up to bring back both crew and capsule.
@@gravelydon7072lol. Starship isn’t even pressurized. And can’t reenter. And has only landed once. And it can’t seem to get to orbit. And it costs 100x what falcon costs.
I guess you’ve drank all that kool aid…
@Meatball2022 if you look at the mission parameters on Google and almost literally every minute from the SpaceX narrators on the live feed, the mission was never to achieve orbit, but to achieve a high enough speed upon reentering the atmosphere (IFT 4 achieved about 29,000 kph at 170 km above sea level, which is enough speed for peak reentering temperatures on the heat shield) to gauge survivability of the heat shield and to simulate a 'virtual tower' landing for both booster and vehicle.
As of now, Starship is still in prototype phase and will continue to conduct these kinds of tests until Nasa certifies SpaceX to send astronauts.
Keep in mind SpaceX has done this kind of prototype testing on the Falcon 9 and booster landings. Falcon 9 took 4 attempts to succeed and the booster landing took about 6.
@@TheReal_JG falcon 9 booster failing didn’t cost a billion at a time
@@TheReal_JG you’ve been sold a non existent bill of goods. Enjoy the kool aid. Starship is so bad it can’t even reach moon without refueling. That’s a planned failure.
It was a valve. Hello, McFly! It's ALWAYS a valve!
There was nothing wrong with the space shuttle. Engineering said don't launch it in this low temperature environment... Bureaucrats said go anyway and it blew up just like engineering said it would. The tiles knocked off during launch could have been repaired while still in orbit, but the bureaucracy failed to do that. National aeronautics and Space administration should not be involved in spacecraft anymore. You don't see the Federal aviation administration running an airline do you??
Now retired I was an aircraft mechanic for 30 years Lockheed by far was a better aircraft
I always loved the L1011 Tristar. I worked at Atlanta Hartsfield and they were a thing of beauty.
@@maxwellcrazycat9204 Having flown in one, I'd agree.
Boeings issue is they cut key quality control personal as the spaceship fell behind schedule. Plus the massive overhead of Boeings corporate ways heavily on the program. While SpaceX does not have these same issues. Boeing was a great airplane manufacturer but now is only mediocre especially when quality is considered and with its massive corporate overhead, it must charge premium dollars for a late and not so great product. Their days as providing launch vehicles for NASA and other space agencies is coming to a close. Competition is eating their lunches and management refuses to take the steps necessary to meet the demands of the market.
All "once good" things must come to an end...
All of Boeing's problems started AFTER the last merger. The well-respected name BOEING was kept, and the failing McDonnell Douglas management filled all the leadership positions.
A blind person can see the problems...
so, are the astronauts asking for their life insurance policies increased ??
I think I would decline a ride home. I'd wait for Uber X to come get me.
At least this is one Boeing that hasn't lost a door.........yet.
Prime example of government compared to private. Space X is years ahead for a fraction of the price.
Boeing got what.......... twice the funding as SpaceX to send two people into space while Dragon takes four. Sounds like the typical government "bargain."
@@valeriedahl yes typical government contracts the world over. Wonder what politicians profited.
@@valeriedahl And Dragon was actually designed with 7 seats.
@@ghost307 AND the Dragon comes in two versions, cargo and crew.
Remember Inspration-4? It didn't dock at the ISS so the Dragon was fitted with a BIG viewing port under the nose hatch for the crew to enjoy the view.
@@valeriedahlits called govt corruption.
Hey Boeing!!! If it is broke and you know it... Don't fly it. Oh wait!!! Remember MCAS???
Clear, concise , no nonsense delivery makes your stories EXCELLENT.
Good job !
NASA will be Ringing SpaceX’s phones very soon………
Spacewalk cancelled. Too dangerous to be outside with StarLiner.
Makes you wish for the best and brightest from the 60's and 70's don't it!
Sounds like a very serious Q&A issue at Boeing that needs to be fixed in the worst way. Heads should roll over this.
Heads roll? Heads should be jailed.
Maybe they can convert it into a new toilet for the ISS. The US should fund and fly SpaceX and move on.
Boeing = Bits Of Engine In Neighbours Garden 😂😂😂
Their executives should be taking the test flights, not valuable astronauts.
With the known insecurity of this vessel, my concern which was never really mentioned is the loss of the two astronauts. We cannot afford to lose any astronauts. It’ll set back the space program for an unknown period of time. And the fact that there is no real set time for these astronauts and the Starliner returning back home safely is unsettling.
They've killed people before.
The deaths will be used to make speeches and "inspire" us to support future space "efforts" to honor the memory of our fallen. They don't really care.
Profits are HUGE.
Money Laundering is their focus. They realized they can tell us things cost more than they actually cost. The money then DISAPPEARS and they ask for MORE money.
When We, The People, start to ask questions they stage a terrorist attack and start a (money laundering) war.
For everyone's safety, they should immediately move the Starliner away from the ISS (as it may literally be a ticking time bomb), then try an automatic reentry without any crew on board. Boeing should pay Space-X to send a Dragon up to retrieve the test pilot crew. NASA should write-off the whole Starliner program and invest in other alternatives. No one needs another fatal disaster in space!
This is the very definition of space junk. I wouldn't trust Boeing to make a safe tricycle.
Boeing is discussing a new contract with NASA. The astronauts are flown to the ISS, but not returned to earth. They call it the "Half-Liner". A joke? Hmmm... not really.
So what can we expect. They built the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and it blew down. Then they built the floating bridge on Lake Washington and it floated away.
Rumor is they made double sure that the door didn't blow off.
How long before Boeing goes out of business
Doubt it. Congress will bail them out
Never, in typical "capitalism gone wild" fashion, they're "too big/important/entrenched" to fail.
I think there's a great solution that we're stepping over when we encounter these "too big to fail" things: Nationalization.
That's right, if Boeing can't run Boeing right, it gets taken over by the government (and no, the CEO's/management who caused this problem wouldn't get their golden parachutes, in fact they'd likely be imprisoned and/or their accounts and assets that the US can exert control over would be frozen, for failure to complete government contracts (such as CST-100 Starliner) to satisfaction).
Of course this won't happen because the corporations have sufficient control over the government to be largely immune to things like "consequences of their actions" and that's why living in the US sucks so much right now.
"Too big to fail", unfortunately.
How long before the US government goes out of business
@@jamesm.5455 We can only hope.
Starliner/Boeing can now brag about how they almost got it right !
At least the door didn't fall off.
imagine if its just there forever now
Yet they still expect us to believe they put men on the moon 55 years ago!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
That what happen when accountants take control friends
Sounds like we have been seeing the result of D E I lately on Boeing products
@@wm7312 And NASA
Just wait until marketers gain the upper hand!
And when technical decisions are made by non-technical minds.
Well you know they suck your blood remember Anderson accountants the vampire died that day
We want a REFUND OF OUR TAX MONEY FROM BOEING! Give it SPACE X!
When I worked for NASA we had an all hands because the Constellation program (later became SLS) had $1B unspent and all centers had to find ways to burn it before the end of the year.
The amount of $ NASA spent before turning LEO over to commercial space is mind boggling. X-34, X-37, X-38, SLI Constellation... all money pits with 0 launches.
Why even bother with Boeing????? Stay with SpaceX!
When it absolutely has to fail its boeing
Boeing is facing the same fate as Pan Am. It will suddenly no longer exist.
If it is not safe don't do it. Bring the starliner home unmanned and bring the astronaut home on starship. Boeing does not want the embarrassment of having the astronaut take an uber ride from space-x. NASA does not need the political embarrassment of losing astronauts to contractor pressure.
They should be sued for sending it up there knowing it wasn’t ready.
Those astronauts are either very brave or have a death wish!
Boeing values money, not lives.
After all these years Nasa should have been the first to get back into the game I mean come on we went to the moon and now it takes years just to get back into space ? something seems a bit fishy IMO....
They've killed people before.
The deaths will be used to make speeches and "inspire" us to support future space "efforts" to honor the memory of our fallen. They don't really care.
Profits are HUGE.
Money Laundering is their focus. They realized they can tell us things cost more than they actually cost. The money then DISAPPEARS and they ask for MORE money.
When We, The People, start to ask questions they stage a terrorist attack and start a (money laundering) war.
The issue is they lost 50 years of experience. Not to mention they outsourced so much of their reliable manufacturing.
But they did have lavish DEI! Hiring and promoting people by ethnicity and sex rather than qualifications!
The peoples money should have gone to a proven winner.
Space X.
Not to a buddy buddy system between congressman and Boeing.
Should have fixed it with some JB weld or duct tape.
You left out the bailing wire, just like Boeing appears to have done.
I think they might have run out of duct tape. Didn't you notice how much they used on the cone of the capsule?
More Boeing DEI engineering? Or more fast food workers doing assembly? Or both? Those MBA’s think you don’t need subject matter experts proficient in an applicable trade? Any warm body can do the job cheaper… Maybe even illegal immigrants…
Looks like a no-brainer; SpaceX has it down! You don’t have to be a “rocket scientist” to figure out that Musk and SpaceX have figured out how to do it better and cheaper! I still can’t get over seeing the Falcon rockets return and land!
Those astronauts will be returning in “crew dragon” then, 😂
How can a “tin can” be so complicated? Start with the minimum and gradually complicate the concept. Boeing you have tarnished the Boeing name.
Why can't Boeing's engineers be as precise and efficient as their hitmen?
I’m really curious, has Boeing’s PC choice of employees rather than quality of abilities had an impact on their success?
When they found those extra leaks they should have aborted mission and returned immediately. Pure hubris and stupidity is why they are there.
It will take them six months to fix the problems before they can come back down.
NASA has such an incredible history, why did they sub out construction to Boeing ? It certainly doesn't sound like it was cost effective. And especially given the current track record of Boeings most current passenger jets, maybe it's time to call Elon Musk & let him run with it.
It's one thing to run into problems after leaving the port. It's another thing to shove off with known problems you failed to repair while in port (Key Bridge).
Yes, I knew about the problems but hey, let’s launch anyway with people onboard. NASA what the heck?
Anyone else’s faith shaken? 🤚
I don't even know why NASA even tries anymore, Spacex has made them look like preschoolers with their superior spacecraft,
As with any government agency; Mo Money, Mo Money, Mo Taxpayers Money
Everyone calm down - Starliner will be fine, let’s focus on the positive.
I so called it. I was worried that space astronauts would be coming back on it, after hearing about the leak. I was so worried for them. They should have SpaceX go over it to make the corrections because Boeing is failing.
The two passengers must have gotten massive hazardous duty pay.
nah, I think Boeing just told them that the "witness convincing team" may make a visit to their families if they decline.
@@myvideosetc.8271They've killed people before.
The deaths will be used to make speeches and "inspire" us to support future space "efforts" to honor the memory of our fallen. They don't really care.
Profits are HUGE.
Money Laundering is their focus. They realized they can tell us things cost more than they actually cost. The money then DISAPPEARS and they ask for MORE money.
When We, The People, start to ask questions they stage a terrorist attack and start a (money laundering) war.
It takes some balls to fly in that Boeing Starliner. I’d be afraid the hatch would fly off during takeoff.
As a video producer I thought robot voices would be a boon for narrations. Now, as a video consumer, I detest them. Why should I put credence to a narration when I know the human sounding voice is really from a machine? “I’ll see you in the next one,” he says at the end of this. Yeah, sure.
If it's a Boeing, then it ain't going.
BOEING: YOU ARE FIRED.
Does Boeing offer on-site repair? :)
LOL! I don't think so. It will only increase the number of personnel needing a ride back home on SpaceX!
Lifetime warranty. Just bring the space craft to our shop and our very knowledgeable service advisor will take care.
No car shield
AAA😂
@@Wes4Trump No it's: ASV: American Space Vehicles. It's at the ISS and AAA doesn't go there.
SpaceX to the rescue!
IT TOOK SPACEX A QUARTER OF THE TIME BOEING TOOK TO SCREW UP STARLINER
And they call our Elon musk for over optimistic promises!!!😂😂
So Boing corporation can't build helium tight valves. I wonder how every other space company in history have done it. This must be pretty embarrassing for them. Software bugs should probably not be possible they would have digital twins surely.
The starliner is the helium blower. I am worried for its safety.
If this keeps up the ISS will have a huge Rocket garage with broken down
Rockets
They should just hang a big sign on the ISS that reads "Sanford and Son".
Boeing's DEI policy is working well.
Boeing needs to increase their C E O's AND V P.'s more BONUS money for doing absolutely nothing .